Sunday, 24 August 2014

Boyhood and Learning to Make a Path around the Chaos of Indoctrination

by Christopher Barr

“Among other things, you’ll find that you’re not the first person who ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior.  You’re by no means alone on that shore, you’ll be excited and stimulated to know, many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now.  Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles.  You’ll learn from them – if you want to.  Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you.  It’s a beautiful reciprocal arrangement.  And it isn’t education.  It’s history.  It’s poetry.”
 - J.D. Salinger, The Catcher and the Rye

“It happens sometimes.  Friends come in and out of our lives like busboys in a restaurant.”
 -  Gordie, Stand By Me


Boyhood is a coming-of-age story about family and adaptation.  It’s about conformity and regret as well as life in America.  The film was shot over a 12 year period with the same principle cast.  Richard Linklater’s opus, as a result, is a fascinating unique film, a film like no other.  It is wonderfully intimate, while simultaneously technical, in its Tolstoy-esque scope of life and the search for meaning as one grows up in another man’s ready-made society.

Boyhood is truly one of the great poems on film in years; it captures, through a sociological and psychological experiment, the vastness of the human condition.  This film has no fat, it is as honest a film as one is going to get, with magnificent performances by the young actors as well as the older ones, the directing was engaging and in some places, documentary-like, capturing nuance and banality in interesting ways.

The story focuses around young six year old Mason Jr. as he goes from grade one all the way through to grade 12, graduating and then finally going off to college at the age of 18.  The film is a bit of sociological tragedy as it explores the barriers that Mason endures while trying to find his voice in the world.  Most of the adults in the film suppress his possibilities one way or another, telling him to fall in line with everyone else in order to be successful in life.  They lament over their own short-comings, their own failures and do what too many adults do; they drag the young down with them.  Their inability to except that they so-called failed what society expected of them, they psychologically sabotage anyone else from succeeding to avoid confronting the reality of their own disappointments.

The film did go through the pluses and minuses of education, it explored natural versus indoctrinating forms of learning, where Mason was presented, confronted and in some cases forced to choose sides.  Here the film exposed the child abuse society inflicts on young impressionable minds, how young people are in many cases enforced to comply with their ruling adults’ often destructive ways at looking at the world.  This system is in place to beat the will of freedom out of the young to prepare them for the workforce, so the power structure can maintain servants for their property and money gathering apparatuses.

The film did deal with the ambivalence of freedom; it explored actual consequences in society if we were all able to be free.  Metaphysics philosopher Thomas “Man is a Machine” Hobbes saw the devastating effects on humanity without the safety and comforting walls that civilization provide, he saw life in the hypothetical natural state as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  He felt that humanity is instinctively self-interested and self-serving; to his credit we simply need to turn on the television on to see how this has come to pass.  Hobbes felt that civilization is necessary to place restrictions on these instincts.  For him, keeping people in line was the only way for humanity to build a future for itself.

“Tranquility is found also in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in?”
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau borrowed the idea of the Social Contract proposed by Hobbes and refined by empirical philosopher John Locke.  Rousseau saw the inequalities and injustices in society all too well, he saw growing social unrest and unlike Hobbes, he was less pessimistic about the natural state of things, his rallying cry of “back to nature!” as something desirable and not brutal was a vital part of the Romantic movement in literature.  “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.” - was Rousseau’s challenging declaration at the beginning of his most influential work, The Social Contract.  Rousseau’s book asked for a restructuring to a more alternative civil society where the church, the monarchy and the aristocrats would no longer be in power, he felt that the business of legislation should be for all citizens to participate in.   This new social contract could promote freedom through law.

The political philosopher Henry David Thoreau argued that the individual, to be good should remain wild and free.  He saw the laws of man as more suppressing to the population than protecting their civil liberties.  In his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, Thoreau proposed the individual’s right to conscientious objection through non-cooperation and non-violent resistance.  He thought that the individual should do what his moral conscience - and not man’s laws - tell him what’s right.  He felt that if the individual did not do this they would fall to the will of the government, the agents of injustice.

There was a very telling scene toward the end of the film, where Mason’s mother, Olivia breaks down over the reality of him moving out and going off to college.  She is clearly upset at losing her son, even for a good cause like furthering his education.  But the telling part is how she sums up her life, essentially the meaning of what she expected to happen…differently.  The reality of real life in all its dread and existential timeline appear during this scene, crashing down on her. 

This recalls a scene from Pleasantville where Toby Maguire’s character, David arrives back out of the TV from the 1950’s television show to find his mother crying in the kitchen.  She tells him that life, her life wasn’t supposed to happen this way, assuming here that her, along with Mason’s mother Olivia was, involuntarily traversing the fantasy of the beautiful big house with the white picket fence, the perfect husband, the 2.5 loving, grateful children and the family dog to the real world, a world of war and angst, of struggle and let downs.  David’s mother in Pleasantville says essentially that these real struggles in life ‘weren’t supposed to happen to her’ to which David informs her that nothing is supposed to happen, certainly not in any fate or preordained sense.  Life is a struggle because one has to make their own way in it, the rest of the stuff about the perfect family and fantasy home is a dream the American government, along with their corporate sponsorship with money hungry conglomerate companies, disseminate to manufacture hope as they brainwash the youth of their country to grow up and become obedient compliers, and everlasting consumers of their products.

In spite of a number of bad or misguided influences throughout Mason’s life, he turns out pretty good.  He maintains his curiosity and his ability to be spontaneous, both wonderful attributes for the healthy, growing mind.  While sitting with a pretty girl far from civilization, she asks him whether ‘people seize moments or do moments seize them’, Mason responds with ‘they are always in the moment’.  This is a bit of eastern philosophy about living in the moment, about leaving the past as a hopeful, lesson-learned part that came before the moment and allowing the future to unfold as these series of moments string together and catch up to it.  Here we see that Mason as passed his mother’s line of thinking.  She is depressed about her past and what it all means and sees her future as her inevitable impending funeral.  Mason, and what this inspiring film is leaving us with is; life is not controllable, life happens while most reflect on what should have happened but didn’t, some seize their moment and learn to dance in the rain, and that is the over-all point. 

“Do not indoctrinate your children.  Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.” 

- Richard Dawkins


SIN CITY: A Dame to Kill For between all the Booze, Broads and Bullets

by Christopher Barr









“Sin City’s where you go in with your eyes open, or you don’t come out at all.”












Frank Miller’s
SIN CITY: A Dame to Kill For is the sequel / prequel to the 2005 film Sin City, both films are based pretty well exactly on the Frank Miller neo-noir series, Sin City.  The first film was fresh both visually and technologically; it had a great cast of actors willing to go along with directors Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s vision for the film, and it paid off for everyone involved.

A Dame to Kill For was okay but unfortunately it was forgettable.  The freshness and excitement of the original is gone, the big cast was there but wasn’t as impressive, save the always necessary and stunningly beautiful, Eva Green.  Joseph Gordon Levitt’s story line was, to be frank, a waste of running time, an odd arc indeed, which ended with no apparent character goal other than suicide by asshole. 

Because the film lacked any emotional gravitas, caring for the characters was a problem.  The only person in the movie I cared about was Nancy, that’s right the Jessica Alba character.  Her story line had meaning and weight to it enough to feel a concern about.   She clearly went through hell and from what we can see, didn’t deserve any of it, so her little revenge plot toward the end was satisfying in a way the rest of the film was not.

Visually the movie looked great, not surpassing the first Sin City at all.  The violence and sexuality in the movie was all there like in the first one but because this one was doing it all over again, it seemed more pointless, other than any scene Eva Green was in.  Frank Miller, in his comic series, was overtly hinting at the saturation and escalating violence that America was turning itself into in the late 80’s early 90’s.  Although using his comic as a story board for the film, this sentiment is somewhat lost of the big screen.  The violence is meaningless, which is certainly the point in the comic book but here; it is more glorified and fun, especially in A Dame to Kill For, thus losing its original commentary.

In 2005’s Sin City, John Hartigan was trying to save little Nancy Callahan from a sick pedophile that becomes the Yellow Bastard, thanks to Hartigan.  Marv was avenging the murder of a woman, which he believed cared for him when no one else did, from some sick serial killer cannibal.  Dwight was protecting his girlfriend from an insane Basin City cop, Jackie Boy.  They all had interesting and justifiable motives that were constructed to hold an audience.

A Dame to Kill For didn’t have hardly any of that.  Marv’s story line wasn’t nearly as compelling and Hartigan was barely present.  Dwight was dumb and deserved to be bamboozled by Ava Lord, the seductress that was turning men into monsters at will.  Nancy’s story had solid history from the first film, as a result it was more compelling, which is why directors Robert and Frank likely kept it for the last segment of the film.

“Nancy’s got a guardian angel.  Seven feet plus of muscle and mayhem that goes by the name of Marv.”





Monday, 18 August 2014

The Expendables 3 and Getting Older Among the Youth Obsessed Culture

by Christopher Barr


The Expendables 3 is about the same thing 1 and 2 was about, it’s about bringing back musty action stars from the 80’s and 90’s into a pastiche world of corny one-liners and endless gunfire, except this time it’s PG-13, which means the only good stuff about the last two has been removed to bring in a wider audience.  Sylvester Stallone is the front runner of this muscle extravaganza, he wrote and directed the first one and co-wrote and produced the last two.


The movie was about…I actually don’t know what it was about other than Mel Gibson’s baddie and Sylvester Stallone’s moral high-ground had it out for each other.  That’s not to say the movie is cryptic in the David Lynch sense, it was actually so simple that it was transparent, even an actual plot was unable to hang off its pulsating bicep.  These movies are for your insecure machismo male adolescent, who dream of steely mighty men by night while he struggles to prove his masculinity to any female in breathing/texting distance by day.    

I don’t know if it’s just me, and I’m inclined to think that it isn’t, but the young ‘talent’ coming out of Hollywood these days are wooden, lifeless people.  Products of a generation of Facebookers and Tweeters that have been lost on the fundamental requirements for human connection, people that have developed relationships through text messaging and not face to face.


The young stars that are introduced in The Expendables 3 are so forgettable that I have to type this fast to get my thoughts on them down before they drift into nothingness.  They were dull and they were boring, they lacked any charisma, they lacked personality, oh and did I say they were boring.  This makes me think of The Goonies, Stand by Me, it makes me think of Back to the Future and The Breakfast Club, I can throw in Clerks and Dazed and Confused, even Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels for that matter.  These were all films with a cast of young people that had heartbeats, they had verve and actual character.


Today, according to same who believe we live in the best of times, we have Twilight, Divergent, The Mortal Instrument: City of Bones and The Maze Runner, all movies filled with card-bored cutout iTeens that have taken the Zombie craze to a whole new level, with this method acting de-animated CGI-teared fake-fest.


There has been a mass epidemic of arrested development in the last couple of decades in North America and now spreading to other parts of the world.  Recently this phenomena has been downloaded in an Apple update to a mass arrested of underdeveloped people.  This is the state of things today where animated concepts like a sense of humor and the ability to understand metaphor has been dis-‘Liked’ and discarded for cool concepts like #hashtags and WTF’s.


Watching The Expendables 3 made me sad that these grizzly old men, in order to stay relevant in the modern age, have to include such ‘dial-tones’ to their cast.  And to think that the cast was not already crowded enough they add these….wait, who was I talking about?  My train of thought drifted back to Ferris Bueller talking his way into a Chicago fancy restaurant so he can show his best friend Cameron a good time in the city.

The Expendables 3, like many Hollywood movies, is a money grab.  The concept of bringing all these action stars together got boring by the second act of the first movie.  I say thank goodness for Eric Roberts for getting what they were really trying to do with that first movie.  Also, there is something sad and pathetic about seeing men that were so alive in films like Rambo, The Terminator, Lethal Weapon, Blade, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Desperado and Rocky 4, and at this point are all trying to send the message that they still all have it.  They don’t all still have it because they are old, and in modern society, being old is death ;)  They are trying to push the sand back up the hourglass and coming off as desperate for doing so.  Empires rise and fall, nowadays we live in a superhero saturated environment, where wielding a gun at the enemy isn’t good enough, it comes off as too simplistic, today there needs to be something multi-dimensional about the proceedings, something super-human.  Watching older men pull the trigger at faceless, nameless enemies is truly a thing of the past.  Watching Rocky, Predator and The Empire Strikes Back is all the enjoyment I need to know that these men were once great at what they did.  The point being, it’s sad we live in society that has done away with the traditional ‘right-of-passage’ of getting older as a part of life and getting wiser as a hopeful consequence of getting older.   

I’ll be back.


Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Collateral and Identifying Self-Delusion within Naive Realism

by Christopher Barr


“There is no reality except the one contained within us.  That is why so many people live such an unreal life.  They take the images outside them for reality and never allow the world within to assert itself.” 
– Hermann Hesse



“…humankind cannot bear very much reality.” 
– T.S. Eliot



Collateral is a superb Los Angeles crime thriller, a film by the always assiduous Michael Mann, save the film adaptation of Miami Vice, one of the great American directing auteurs of his generation.  The film opens in a crowded airport when the antagonist walks sharply through the chaos of traveling people with the ease and confidence of a great white shark.    

Vincent sports silver hair and a gray suit transforming himself into a blend of urban camouflage; he is a representation of the modern technological age, the color of metal and as cold as steel.  His humanity is entirely stripped from him and all that is left is a symbolic machine, a meticulous killing machine.  Vincent bumps into a man walking by, both men look at each other.  Vincent, wearing black sunglasses, giving him shark eyes of sorts, picks up that man’s case and walks away while no one in the airport notices their little pass off as Vincent forges on, a man on mission.

Max is a taxi driver, a man that keeps his cab clean and organized before he begins his shift.  He places a picture in his overhead visor of a gorgeous island with a sandy beach surrounding it, that’s his place of Zen, his pictorial mantra that he glances up at when his passengers irritate him.  Max is a city dweller that keeps to his routines to avoid change.


Change has always been an Achilles heel of most people, it instigates alteration, and it motivates precarious movement.  Change often means growth which sometimes requires courage.  Change to most people, is the enemy of safety, and that’s what people want - to be safe.  Safe in their cozy bubble, in Max’s case, that bubble is his taxi cab.  It’s his domain even if the world around him is in a hurry, here in the cab, he can control. 

Losing control is the biggest fear of all, that’s what people avoid, that’s why many of us avoid change and thus avoid growth, so we can maintain what little control we have over this chaotic jungle of a society we inhabit.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, most people want to live, so maintaining control and fearing change because what it bring is understandable.  The problem is what we have to give up in order to be safe, which paradoxical is some ways because in order to survive we have to avoid the requirements of a sustainable fulfilling existence.  A key component of this is giving control over to change in order to realize to discoveries.   


Max picks up Annie, a beautiful young career woman that immediately gives off the impression of strength.  A good kind of strength rather than an overbearing one where it is only masking fear, she’s a confident woman that Max instantly falls for.  He impresses her with his knowledge of the intricacies of the city routes before telling her about his business plan.  A Limo Company, which he claims must be ‘perfect’, called Island Limos where he claims people, will feel like they are on a luxurious island.

This island motif is clearly Max’s psychological daily struggle he has when engaging the world.  The island is a prison cell that he’s glamorized in his mind so he is able to live with the fact that he’s scared to death of taking a chance at something.  He’s clearly a guy that desires change but he is also mentally paralyzed to do anything about it.

Max guesses that Annie is a lawyer by the way she is dressed and her bag.  She continues to be impressed by Max as she tells him that she’s a prosecutor working on a big case.  She tells him that it is stressful and challenging, and then Max gives her his paradise island picture to help her get “harmonic”, to help her relax.  She exits the cab and gives Max her business card and then walks into a building.

Vincent exits that same building, passing Annie and gets into Max’s cab.  Vincent and Max talk briefly about route times and about how LA is too sprawled out, too disconnected.  Vincent then tells Max about a guy who got on the subway in LA and died and for six hours travelled around the city before anyone noticed.

Apathy in the city is unfortunately part of daily life because of all the difference, all the cultures living under one smoggy roof.  Instead of learning about these differences, most people, fearing change, chose to push it out of their mind to the point of indifference.  In the concrete jungle, the animals become distant and quite picky about who they spend their precious time with, and this may sound cynical but most people in the city could give a shit if people out of their “know” lived all their lives or jumped in front of a subway and killed themselves.


Max tells Vincent about his business plan and that this cab gig is just part time, until he gets his dream off its feet.  He then tells him that he’s been a cabbie for 12 years.  You can tell that Vincent knows that Max is full of shit, regardless, Vincent remarks that Max is one of those guy’s that “do” and not one of the one’s that “talk”.

This very thing is a problem that seems to be everywhere, people that talk the talk, but in the end, don’t “do” anything but talk.  This is a result of an arrested population of people that are dreamers while governments regulate most of their lives through various forms of control.

They arrive at Vincent’s stop when he offers Max six hundred dollars to stick with him for the night, so he can make a couple of stops before heading to LAX.  Max hesitates understandably because this is different, Max needs to acclimate to it, like most things that alter his routine.   Max finally agrees to do it as Vincent exits the car, giving Max three hundred dollars up front.

Max pulls over to the side of the building, and glances through a booklet on a brand new Mercedes Benz, clearly a dream car.  He eats a sandwich when out of the blue; a body crashes down on his car, smashing his windshield.  Max freaks out and soon discovers that it was Vincent who killed him.

Here Vincent becomes Max’s very own encounter with the Real, where his bubble is broken, literally and figuratively.  Vincent forces Max to carry on driving him and thus forces Max to live outside his fantasy world and into the real world of danger.   
Vincent tells Max the last thing he wants to hear after he figures out that Vincent is out on a killing spree; Vincent tells Max that he’s going to have to leave his comfort zone, “Okay, look, here’s the deal.  Man, you were gonna drive me around tonight, never be the wiser, but El Gordo got in front of a window, did his high dive, we’re into Plan B.  Still breathing?  Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, shit happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it.”

“The superior man perseveres long in his course, adapts to the times, but remains firm in his direction and correct in his goals.”
– I Ching


Vincent poses an interesting perspective, or rationalization, about Max’s concern for death that occurs in his own surroundings versus the genocide in Rwanda, or the mass killings in Japan during World War 2 as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being strategically bombed.  Vincent is suggesting that our concern about death is subjective and generally, for most people, never objective.  But yet death occurs in the real world and isn’t subjective until the living attempt to apply meaning to it.  Essentially the hypocrisy here is that death isn’t really about the person who died, but rather about the living person who is around when it happened.  People often turn another person’s unfortunate death around and somehow make it is all about themselves.

Vincent takes out his second target while Max is tied up and being robbed by a couple of thugs down in an alleyway.  Vincent shoots the two thugs, point blank, and gets his brief case and Max’s wallet.  Max is still pursuing his ‘flight’ instinct and is thus causing Vincent to kill people that otherwise wouldn’t have to die.

Vincent and Max go to a jazz bar while detectives try and figure out what’s going on with the murders.  Vincent is metaphorically Jazz, he’s off melody, behind the notes, not what’s expected and not surprisingly, Max doesn’t like Jazz for that very reason.  Vincent points out that most people, ten years from now, will have the same job and the same life, but with them, doing what they are doing, they won’t know where they’ll be ten minutes from now.

Vincent and Max talk to a Jazz musician about meeting the great trumpet player Miles Davis.  Here we get another story about a man who had opportunities, he had chances to ‘make’ something of himself and it all blew by him, days to weeks, weeks to years, years to forgotten.  Now he does what Max does, he talks and doesn’t “do”.  Then Vincent kills him after he fails to answer a pivotal question about Miles Davis and where he studied music.  He was Vincent’s third target all along and Max didn’t even know it.

While Max and Vincent visit Max’s mother in the hospital, Vincent finds out that his mother thinks her son runs his own limo company.  Max is angered by his lie revealed and takes Vincent’s briefcase, running out of the hospital with it and before Vincent catches him, he throws the case over a safety railing on a pedway, over a freeway where a transport truck hits and destroys it.  This naturally pisses Vincent off but he’s also impressed that Max showed a different side of himself.


Here we begin to see that Vincent, in spite of himself, cares about Max, he cares about this cage that Max has built around himself to keep safe.  Vincent becomes an unsuspecting guru of sorts to Max’s sluggish pupil. 

Vincent asks about why Max lied to his mother, he asks about his so-called limo company.  Max runs down a list of excuses as to why it’s not off the ground yet and then says that it has to be perfect, in other words, it has to remain in the fantasy world of the mind so it can stay perfect.  If he actually attempts it and fails then he’ll have nothing to fantasize about in his safe little bubble, so he keeps pushing it off.

Vincent is quite the opposite; he lives too much in the real world that he’s become detached from humanity.  He pretty well sees everything as it is, without all the sugar coating and re-imagining that most people apply to reality.  As a result, Vincent is like the shark that can’t stop moving or he’ll die, he’s a man without a dream, he’s a man without any form of hope for the future.  Vincent is a true product of the modern age, a manufactured assassin.  On some levels, Vincent is reality in all its blood and death.

The Buddha went on a six year pilgrimage and finally after attempting to understand what it is to be alive, while sitting and mediating under the Bodhi tree in Bodhgaya, Northern India for 49 days, Siddhartha Gautama awakened to an eternal present and thus becoming the ‘Enlightened One’.  What the Buddha discovered here was the ordinary, everyday person either lived in the past or in the future but not in the present.  The Buddha aimed to only live in the present and thus cleansed himself of his past and laid waste of dreams of the future.  What made this man so profoundly unique is the mental discipline that was required for him to arrive at such a revelation.  At a glance, while untrained, this might look obvious but one would be hard pressed to find a person that was able to cut all the baggage from their past, that quite literally defines most people, and remove it, or rather properly compartmentalize it.

Most people live in the past and not the present, and those that don’t readily live in the past, dream of a future where their lives are better in some way, usually resulting in them getting more things and more money.  Or dreams of living among people that one can control better to make life easier.  It’s hard to truly comprehend what it must have taken for the Buddha to achieve this level of understanding of his own mental faculties.

Max is living in the future, a man that dreams of a ‘perfect’ business where he believes he will find fulfilment.  Certainly not comparing Vincent to the Buddha, but they both do have one thing in common, and that one thing is what Vincent finally teaches Max, and that it to live in the present.  Max is a dreamer, but more tragically, he’s not actually living a life, he is merely existing while surviving the chaos of the world around him.  He’s suffering self-deception, like most people, he is miles away from reality, while his basic motor skills and daily duties are being fulfilled, he spirit is not.


Self-delusion is a malediction that we all suffer from.  We alter reality and rewrite it to suit our subjective experience we choose to perceive, and when I say choose I don’t mean consciously rebuilding reality; I mean to say that this is part of our hard wiring in the sub-structures of the mind.  Naïve realism is what the resulting delusion becomes, our very own perception of reality, which is unique to us.  Our brains constantly mislead us into believing almost anything other than what is real, in the world without us. 

We trust our brains for the most part because that’s all we know to trust.  Everything comes from the brain, even if one looks down at their leg and believes they see their leg out there in the world.  The computational effort that is required to come to such a conclusion was worked in the brain.  Everything is relayed back into your brain, deconstructed and then reconstructed in your image, what remains is discarded but never lost.

The FBI and police detectives suspect Max’s cab outside of a night club as the cab they are looking for.  Max had to go inside to get Vincent a new list because of the previous getting destroyed on the freeway.  Max meets with Felix, the man that Vincent is killing for, a man that has never actually met Vincent.  Felix believes Max is Vincent as he expresses how furious he is over the list being lost, forcing Max into a corner.

Rather than running, Max for the first time in the film, stands his ground, like the Narrator in Fightclub, Max starts to talk and sound like Vincent, the Tyler Durden of their opposing personalities.  Max succeeds and gets the list out to the cab to Vincent and they drive off to Vincent’s next target.  It turns out Vincent’s been contracted to kill witness’ that are turning state’s evidence against Felix to save themselves from going to jail.  


On their way to a Nightclub called Fever, where Vincent eventually kills his forth target during a massive joint FBI, LAPD shootout, Vincent encourages Max to call Annie, the prosecutor he got the number from in the opening scenes of the film.  Vincent reminds Max that life is short and that he should take the chance.  Vincent knows he’s done, but his glimmer of hope now lies in Max, who starts to become a fantasy that Vincent starts to have about living a normal life.  He nurtures his new found fantasy by helping Max see his potential; he also likes the idea of not being alone.


Vincent has become a drifting wolf in the night, roaming from kill to kill and in between just existing.  He explains that there in a galaxy with millions of stars and they are on one of them, he sees life as meaningless.  He has all the tendencies of someone who wants to commit suicide but projects them outward into the world.  He’s on an existential, extroverted rampage of disappointment toward the reality and lack of meaning to his own life.


Max asks Vincent what wrong with him?  He figures there must be a wire loose because the parts that are supposed to be built goodness into people, he doesn’t possess.  Max sees Vincent’s lack of empathy; he sees that Vincent is dead inside, a sociopath.  Vincent wants to know why he didn’t start his business, why is he still driving a taxi.  He tells Max that he isn’t going to call that girl and he isn’t going to start his company.  He says it was all a dream and that one day Max’s going to wake up and he will be old and it will never have happened.

Max speeds the taxi up as Vincent illuminates him on the fact that he’s a loser and will always be one.  Max reminds Vincent that, according to him, everything is insignificant anyway so the hell with it.  Max is waking up out of his inactive slumber and taking back control of his own life.  As a result, Max crashes the taxi against a guardrail and flips it down an empty street, smashing it against a row of parked cars.  Max sacrificed himself in order to live again, to start new as a man experiencing an awakening.


The police show up and Vincent escapes the wreckage of the car and runs off.  Max gets arrested at the crash but sees that Annie, the prosecutor is Vincent’s last target so he gets the upper hand and cuffs the cop to a pole and runs after Vincent.  Max is facing his fears and embracing change not only for the sake his own life by for Annie’s as well.  

Max arrives at Annie’s building where Vincent is ready to kill her, then Max intervenes and shoots Vincent wounding him as he and Annie run away.  Max and Vincent’s showdown ends on a subway car with Vincent fatally wounded.  He reminds Max about the man that died on the subway and travelled around the city for six hours before anyone noticed him, then he dies, and Max and Annie walk out during the dawn of a new day.
Collateral was a commentary on detachment in society, on how people have forgot how to be humane to one another.  It’s also a film about rising up out of the decadence of society and taking back one’s humanity even if no one else is willing to.  Collateral is about survival, and how so many people live their whole lives without waking up to the fact there is so much more to it.  Max killed the wolf, he killed the shark, so that he could live again, without living with fear. 

“Change proves true on the day it is finished.”
– I Ching